Rearranging deck chairs on the H.M.S. Titanic...
"Or if an expansionist group did propose pernicious ideas, they would be impotent to persuade the body politic in any healthy society—unless they used violence."There is more than one way to be expansionist - and more than one way to be violent.Throughout history, minority rulers have frequently ruled larger groups of people with different philosophical and/or religious beliefs. The rule can be expansionist - without the religion being expansionist.Violence can be imposed to gain ruling power in more or less sophisticated ways. Is imploding the economy of a nation, region, continent, or time period any less violent than 'physical' violence? Economic disruptions often lead to violently bloody revolutions played for economic benefit of a designated group that lit the fuse of the bomb.From Karl Denninger:http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229655http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229655http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229657http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=229660
Islam is Islam, so-called violent Islam is just traditional Islam practiced the way it's supposed to be. Even Al Azar implies that.The anti-jihad movement is shooting itself in the foot by excusing violence against non-believers by peddling this line of c**p. They are trying so hard to be liked by the MSM that they are almost as bad the MSM in covering the heinous acts of Muslims.And then when some new poster says expel'em all or something like that, the old timer posters get all puffy and castigate the guy who then writes off the anti-jihad movement as a bunch of suicidal PC wimps - which most of them are.cronk.
"And then when some new poster says expel'em all or something like that, the old timer posters get all puffy and castigate the guy who then writes off the anti-jihad movement as a bunch of suicidal PC wimps - which most of them are."Yes indeed, anonymous. And the Jihad Watch Comments regulars who call themselves "Phillip Jihadski" and "Angemon" are among the worst, in that they have expended over 100 comments combined over several months (if not a year or two) attacking me for my assertive advocacy & articulation of the deportation recommendation.It's not about me: I'm not bothered because they attack me personally -- but I am angry (and my sense of civic duty is deeply offended) that their war-of-idea efforts are tending to push & promote the Soft approach to this metastasizing problem. I wouldn't bat an eyelash at a Soft approach out in the mainstream; but in the context of a discussion space within the Counter-Jihad, it is particularly aggravating & aggrieving.
Post a Comment